aiqbench analysis
This research investigates the trade-offs between consistency and specificity in mechanistic interpretability circuits, revealing that component-level subgraphs are highly consistent but lack task specificity due to shared MLP blocks. Conversely, neuron-level circuits offer better task isolation at the cost of internal consistency, suggesting a fundamental limitation in using sparse circuits for targeted model intervention. These findings provide critical insights into how interpretable AI models can be structured to support precise behavioral understanding without unintended side effects.
How Much Do Circuits Tell Us? Measuring the Consistency and Specificity of Language Model Circuits
arXiv:2605.08348v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The circuits framework in mechanistic interpretability aims to identify sparse subgraphs of model components that are causally responsible for a behavior, typically evaluated by measuring necessity and sufficiency. But these criteria say little about whether a circuit consistently captures how a model performs a task, or if it is specific to that task. We study these two properties, consistency and specificity, across six tasks and five models, extracting circuits at the component level (attention heads and MLP blocks) and at the level of individual MLP neurons. We find that component-level circuits are highly consistent and causally important on most tasks, but they are not specific: ablating one task's circuit damages another task's performance about as much as that task's own circuit does. Neuron-level circuits, on the other hand, exhibit higher task-specificity but are far less consistent within tasks. This is explained by circuit overlap: component-level circuits share most of their components across all task pairs, related or not, while neuron-level circuits overlap only between closely related tasks. In a case study of the components shared by the task circuits of Llama-3.2-3B, we show that they consist mostly of MLP blocks, while the few attention heads within turn out to be generic attention-sink heads. Overall, our findings raise questions about the degree to which circuits can support targeted understanding of, and intervention on, model behavior.
Title:How Much Do Circuits Tell Us? Measuring the Consistency and Specificity of Language Model Circuits
Abstract:The circuits framework in mechanistic interpretability aims to identify sparse subgraphs of model components that are causally responsible for a behavior, typically evaluated by measuring necessity and sufficiency. But these criteria say little about whether a circuit consistently captures how a model performs a task, or if it is specific to that task. We study these two properties, consistency and specificity, across six tasks and five models, extracting circuits at the component level (attention heads and MLP blocks) and at the level of individual MLP neurons. We find that component-level circuits are highly consistent and causally important on most tasks, but they are not specific: ablating one task's circuit damages another task's performance about as much as that task's own circuit does. Neuron-level circuits, on the other hand, exhibit higher task-specificity but are far less consistent within tasks. This is explained by circuit overlap: component-level circuits share most of their components across all task pairs, related or not, while neuron-level circuits overlap only between closely related tasks. In a case study of the components shared by the task circuits of Llama-3.2-3B, we show that they consist mostly of MLP blocks, while the few attention heads within turn out to be generic attention-sink heads. Overall, our findings raise questions about the degree to which circuits can support targeted understanding of, and intervention on, model behavior.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2605.08348 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2605.08348v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.08348 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 332 words
Related coverage

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026
Angles of attack for continual learning safety
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026

IBM Computing Legacy, The Complete Story From 1890 To Quantum Computing
Quantum Zeitgeist · Aug 3, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026